Sri Balaraj S vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 9745 Kant

                              -1-


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                        PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

                           AND

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

        WRIT APPEAL NO.523 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI BALARAJ S
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
S/O CHOWRAPPA,
R/O YAGAPPA LAYOUT,
V. NAGENAHALLI, R.T. NAGAR,
BENGLAURU - 560 032.                       ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR K.N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
       REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
       DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES,
       VIKAS SOUDHA,
       BENGALURU - 560 001

2.     FISHERIES ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
       BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
       CUBBON PARK, K.R. CIRCLE,
       BENGALURU - 560 001.             ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI VIJAY KUMAR A. PATIL, AGA)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.05.2022 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP 9750/2022 (GM-RES) AND TO
ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION.

      THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                      -2-


                               JUDGMENT

This intra-Court appeal has been filed challenging the

impugned final order dated 26.05.2022 whereby, the writ

petition preferred by the appellant/petitioner has been

dismissed on merit.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

there is a provision for extension of lease under the

amendment provided to the Fishing Policy dated

27.08.2014. The learned Single Judge has failed to

appreciate that the work of removing weeds from the water

body was not completed and as such, the

appellant/petitioner should have been given extension of

lease.

3. We have considered the submissions and gone

through the record.

4. The learned Single Judge has noted the

contentions of learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner.

It has been noted that in the year 2019, the work of

removing weeds was taken up and the stipulated time to

complete the said work was 11 months. Thereafter, the

appellant/petitioner has got two years extension of lease,

i.e., much more than the period during which the weeding

work was required to be carried out. The learned Single

Judge has taken the view that as such, there was no

infirmity or illegality in refusing extension of lease period to

the appellant/petitioner.

5. We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the

view taken by the learned Single Judge as the

appellant/petitioner was granted extension of lease for the

purpose of removing weeds from the water body within a

period of 11 months and the appellant/petitioner failed to

remove the weeds from the water body within the period

prescribed. He was granted extension of two years of lease,

but during that period also, the weeding work was not

carried out, as such, the appellant/petitioner has no right to

claim extension of lease.

6. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

7. The pending interlocutory application does not

survive for consideration and accordingly stands disposed

of.

SD/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE VM